at the panel Shifting from an unequal, divided world to a sharing society:
how?

Baku, May 11th, 2016

Freedom is the
biggest gain of the second half of the twentieth century, but freedom, too
brought a risen inequality, which now threatens the stability and security
of the social matter. Is there a remedy for all these consequences which
would not threaten the so hard won freedom? Yes: integration. Integration is
the concept more frequently used than understood.

Modern societies
are trying to develop concepts that allow them to protect their citizens and
at the same time stay competitive in the globalized markets. The approach of
a new welfare state is no longer to arrange for full coverage of (ideally)
all risks but to replace the existing extraordinarily expensive systems with
more targeted and efficient approaches. This is achieved through requiring
people to assume more risks individually and to organize their adequate
protection themselves.

Unfortunately, this
so-called “risk shift from public to private” had as consequence many
half-hearted or partial reforms, leading to ineffective working structures,
inadequate employment arrangements, and ultimately an erosion of the
protective systems, rather than their real modernization.

Our present world
faces a series of paradoxes: underdevelopment does not exclude arming,
democracy does not eradicate corruption, and market economy fails to prevent
ecological disasters and unemployment. 50 years after it was adopted, the
Universal Declaration of the Human Rights is systematically defied, either
on ideological pretexts, or under the endemic burden of poverty.

In order to stand
before one another with our particular affinities and needs, it is necessary
to establish a universal consensus referring to those moral values that
protects not only each community, but also each person. How could we
initiate a real dialogue to discover it? It's risky to establish such a
consensus around the idea of good. We can surmise that, for centuries from
now on, every society will have its own views about its spiritual or earthly
welfare. Trying to standardize these concepts means to advocate the
establishment of a single type of thinking and to ineffectively multiply the
outbreaks of tensions.

Therefore, if we
cannot always perceive the common good, it seems to me more reasonable to
begin with identifying the common harm. It is in the interest of all nations
to meet on the same ground in order to reject what they all reckon to be
intolerable. I am confident that everyone here refuses from the very
beginning the idea of war, terrorism, torture, pollution, crime of opinion,
xenophobia, racism, and genetic manipulation, exploitation of children,
social exclusion, hunger, professional discrimination on sex, religion or
ethnic affiliation. We have the duty to diagnose together these diseases, so
that we can heal together the wounds that they continue to make.

Can we face such
diverse challenges? With what kind of arguments? With what means?

An intense effort
for citizenship education is needed in order to convince people that
principles and process of development are the same for the individual,
family, organization, nation-state and for the whole world. At each level
peace and stability are indispensably required for development. Today it is
not just nations that have an opportunity to advance rapidly. Humanity as a
whole is poised for a quantum leap forward if in a global social view, the
opportunities for everyone are exponentially greater. Such a principle of
global economic development is not anymore based on money accrual and on the
blind race for enrichment, or on survival, but on human dignity and
cooperation between free responsible individuals.

To build a strategy
of hope, before asking what is the world we want to live in, let’s ask
ourselves who WE are. The more we are those who share common values and who
will accept reasonable disagreements, the higher are the chances of peace
and progress. We can thus say: the 21st Century will be a century of
synthesis and solidarity, or it will not be at all!

Conflict prevention
and post-conflict situations management require a more comprehensive
perspective that will allow the development of the global or regional
institutions complementarily. A balanced vision should take into account the
interests of different ethnical and religious communities, the states
obligations and their citizens’ natural rights, the conjunctural and
long-term interests of the regional actors. It cannot be elaborated without
involving representatives competent to express the voices plurality,
questions and aspirations from billions of people. Political structures
should be supplemented by civil society structures dedicated to world
security issues. Only such a process to consolidate the respect for human,
democracy and common security may reach the depth that only peoples’ real
will can guarantee.

The preventive
vocation will constitute the keystone of its short term activities. This
fact involves a raising complexity of the analyses and action ways. The
repetitive crises have shown that unfortunately punctual preventive
interventions are not enough and should be inserted in a complex of long
term actions which needs to take into account the overall aspects of some
regions and the overall aspects of the problems that might create
destabilize, starting with economic difficulties and going to the
stereotypes anchored in conflictual mentalities, from the communication ways
precariousness to the security unconventional risks.

I wonder if the
exciting and generous topic of a shared society is a challenge, a hope or a
dream. If we seek an answer in the full of conflicts history of mankind, in
which solidarity was achieved more often against something, rather than for
a common goal, the answer will not be too hopeful. If we ask the science, it
will tell us that we live in a world of uncertainties which, except from
politics, we have found ways to manage. If we ask the music, we will learn
that there is hope for a dream to become reality. Basically, a shared
society resembles an orchestra where different instruments, playing
different chords, can result in harmony.

In the Antiquity
and the Middle Ages, philosophers and scientists have seen the movement of
planets like the music of the spheres. Neither to music was not easy to
achieve harmony. First, there was the choice between symphony, sound
together, and diaphony. The first showing consonance, while dissonance
corresponds to the second. And then, a long way from the song consisting of
successive sounds to the harmony between sounds perceived
simultaneously.

In many places in
the world will be heard the Anthem of Europe, the end of Beethoven’s
Symphony No. 9, when the human voices: soloists and choir, are joining the
orchestra's instruments. When this hymn was chosen for Europe, maybe it was
considered only the Hymn to Joy; but I dare to believe that the symbol was
deeper and was taken into account the possibility that the 27 present member
states, and those to come, will work in harmony and will preserve their
identity.

We can understand
it easier if we refer to the human body, which is so fully integrated that
each cell, organ and system has the capacity to respond to local stimuli, to
compensate for changes in the functioning of other parts of the body, and to
also accept instructions from the central nervous system. Integration
converts a mechanical organization into a living organism.